Aviation non-profit executive compensation.

See the question above in the thread. Is it OK or not?

  • No

  • Yes

Results are only viewable after voting.
fasteddie said:
Putting aside the OP's vagueness, I was curious about compensation for EAA's execs, how much it is, how a specific compensation level is set, etc.

The EAA's Tax Return (IRS Form 990) is a good place to look. Part VII has the info on employee compensation. According to it, there are 18 EAA employees who make over 100k a year. 13 of those have a position as "Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees," and are therefore specifically listed by name. I listed this info below, along with the year that the person started their position.

For reference, it seems like EAA pulls in about $55 million in revenue a year. As a non-profit, they of course spend about this same amount. Info is split between a Form 990 for the EAA (about $44 million) and a Form 990 for the EAA Aviation Foundation (about $11 million). Note this was all for the fiscal year ending Feb 2020. Revenue was significantly down for the fiscal year ending Feb 2021, due to the pandemic, etc.

To me, just a spectator on the sidelines, these salaries seem (mostly) reasonable. I feared EAA would be one of those orgs with 100 different Vice Presidents, but that's not the case. 6 VPs, one Exec VP, and a CEO. I could kinda see the OP's criticism of the CEO's salary being high (almost $500k). At the same time, Jack Pelton was previously CEO at Cessna, so it's not like he doesn't have an extremely good pedigree.

Could you argue the CEO (or maybe Exec CEO) should take less? Maybe, but probably not by much. I have to assume if you looked at a for-profit company doing $50+ million in business a year, you'd probably see similar compensation numbers (if not more).

The one thing that raises my eyebrows a bit is the tenure of some of these folks. I could only find start dates for a handful of the positions, but Jack Pelton has been in the CEO spot for 10 years. Sean Elliot has been VP Advocacy and Safety for 12 years, and started with EAA back in 2000 as the Director of Air Operations. These tenures seem long. Most every large publicly-traded company I've been involved with seems to have VPs stay in their position for 3-5 years. CEOs maybe a little longer. I don't know what the right length of tenure is, but I have to think there is danger of an org like EAA having it's exec staff become ossified. Aviation tends to have more than its fair share of "good 'ol boys" clubs, and there is no reason for another one. Also, if there isn't movement at the top, that slows development of the next generation of leaders further down the chain.

View attachment 105690
Click to expand...

That is some great research. Keep in mind where EAA is as well. Outside of a couple of positions they basically have to take what they can get in the Oshkosh area as not many people are willing to move there. Thus, you are likely to get lifers. It may also help in the salary department as unless they are willing to move their options are fewer as well.
 
Bob Noel said:
lifestyle choices can certainly have an impact on cancer risks.
Click to expand...
Not breast cancer, really, which is the topic of the rabbit trail.

BUT, the fact that a deadly disease can be affected by lifestyle choices might be an argument in favor of MORE funding, as "raising awareness" is expensive.
 
Bob Noel said:
lifestyle choices can certainly have an impact on cancer risks.
Click to expand...
Yes, but not so much breast or prostate cancer.

Breast cancer gets lots of funding because as much wailing and gnashing of teeth we hear about "patriarchy" and "misogyny", society places great value on women, particularly young women (with good reason).
 
Jim K said:
Yes, but not so much breast or prostate cancer.

Breast cancer gets lots of funding because as much wailing and gnashing of teeth we hear about "patriarchy" and "misogyny", society places great value on women, particularly young women (with good reason).
Click to expand...

That, and the fact that everyone loves boobs.
 
donjohnston said:
I'll just leave this right here.
View attachment 105982
Click to expand...

No one recovers from Alzheimers. No one. You chances of suffering Alzheimers become 50% if you live to be 85. With the graying of the population the number of Alzheimers victims will soon surpass the number cancer victims. Research monies directed into the causes and treatments of Alzheimers is dwarfed by that spent on cancer.
 
steingar said:
No one recovers from Alzheimers. No one. You chances of suffering Alzheimers become 50% if you live to be 85. With the graying of the population the number of Alzheimers victims will soon surpass the number cancer victims. Research monies directed into the causes and treatments of Alzheimers is dwarfed by that spent on cancer.
Click to expand...

Fair points, but some of the discrepancy might be because cancer research currently has a lot of productive avenues for spending research money. Not for all types of cancer, unfortunately, but research is far enough along for many types that pouring on more money accelerates the progress that has already been demonstrated.

Alzheimers needs money for basic research; now that the amyloid hypothesis has been beaten to death over the last 20 years without yielding useful results, the challenge is figuring out what to work on next. There is no shortage of interesting ideas, and they deserve funding, but there is a shortage of highly promising ideas.
 
GaryM said:
Alzheimers needs money for basic research; now that the amyloid hypothesis has been beaten to death over the last 20 years without yielding useful results, the challenge is figuring out what to work on next. There is no shortage of interesting ideas, and they deserve funding, but there is a shortage of highly promising ideas.
Click to expand...
I am far from convinced that the Amyloid hypothesis is incorrect, though I am convinced that the large aggregates that are the target of Aduhelm may not be the culprit. Amyloid forms smaller aggregates that are likely far more cytotoxic and that might not be bound by a monoclonal antibody. The Genetics is far too clear on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top